DEATHS IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

The Hospital for Consumption and Diseases of the Chest. At this important institution 131 persons died, viz., 80 males and 51 females. All the deaths, with the exception of eight, were due to that hitherto incurable malady phthisis, or as it is popularly known, consumption. Five deaths were caused by heart disease, one by aneurism, and two by lung disease. The deaths in the four quarters respectively were 26, 30, 30, and 45. Six only of the deaths properly belong to the parish. Seventy-five of the deceased came from other parishes in London and the suburbs, and 50 from other than metropolitan counties. If the truth were known, it is not improbable that some few deaths from phthisis outside the hospital properly belong to other districts, the patients having come to town for medical treatment attracted by the fame of the institution, and being attended as out-patients.

St. Joseph’s House.—This large charitable establishment of the Roman Catholics, situated in Portobello Road, Notting Hill, is not classed as a public institution, although its inmates (about 200) are drawn from all parts. The deaths last year numbered 36—males 21 and females 15—all above 60 years of age, and due to the more common diseases of senility, as Brain disease 8, Lung and Heart disease 16, Cancer 3, Intestinal diseases 3, “Old Age” 2, other diseases 4.

The Parish Infirmary.—At this large and important hospital there were 221 deaths, viz., in the four quarters respectively 61, 40, 44, and 76; males 117, females 104. The deaths included 37 of infants under one year of age, and 86 of persons above 60 years of age, viz., between 60 and 70, 36; 70–80, 38; 80–90, 11; at 97, 1. Inquests were held in three cases, the verdicts returned being (1) “Sudden, apoplexy, natural causes,” (2) “Fall from a window, accidental,” (3) “Fall from a ladder, accidental.”

The causes of death may be summarised thus:—

Brain disease, Apoplexy, Paralysis, &c.	26
Lung diseases	37
Heart disease	7
Scrofulous or Tuberculous diseases, Phthisis, &c.	41
Wasting diseases, Debility, &c., of Children	21
Atelectasis (Imperfect expansion of lungs at birth)	5
Cancer	8
Enteric fever	2
Measles	4
Diarrhœa	3
Intestinal diseases, &c.	13
Kidney disease	4
Uterine diseases	2
Ulcer	3
Childbirth, &c.	3
Violent 2. Privation 1.	3
Old Age	23
Various	16
Total	221

INQUESTS.

A large proportion of deaths form the subject of enquiry in the Coroner’s Court. Last year the number was 172, viz., 152 in the Town sub-district and 20 in Brompton, equal to 6.4 per cent. of the total deaths. One hundred of the subjects of enquiry were below the age of five years, 80 being less than a year old, mostly in fact infants of a few hours, days, or weeks. Forty-eight inquests were held on persons between the ages of 5 and 60, and 24 on persons above the age of 60. The great majority of the deaths were due to disease. Thus of the 99 sudden deaths the causes of death as found by post mortem examination (and post mortem examinations were made in 154 out of the total of 172 cases) were as follows:—

Brain, Diseases of the	13
Apoplexy	11
Lungs, Diseases of the	24
Heart „ „	20
Scrofula	4
Convulsions	4
Spasm of the Glottis	7
Diarrhœa	3
Diphtheria	2
Syphilis	2
Premature birth and infantile debility	3
Visceral diseases (of Liver, Kidneys, &c.)	3
“Fever” 1; Thrush 1; “Sudden” 1	3
Total	99

Various diseases were specified in other six cases in which the deaths were not returned as “sudden.” Death was found to be caused by disease in many of the cases in which the deceased were “found dead,” either in bed or otherwise, viz., from

Lungs, Diseases of the	6
Heart „ „	6
Convulsions	4
Brain, Diseases of the, 2; Apoplexy 1	3
Laryngitis 1; Spasm of the Glottis 1; Scrofula 1	3
“Found Dead,” &c.	4
Total	26

The accidental and violent deaths were caused as follows:—

Falls	7
Barns	1
Drowned	4
Suffocation	16
Cut throat	2
Pistol shot	2
Hanging	2
Run over by railway train	1
Wilful Murder	4
“Accident,” “Violence”	2
Total	41

With respect to the accidental or violent deaths it may be remarked that the 16 from suffocation were of infants and due to “accident.” One of the newly born infants was found in a box and another up a chimney; these being, as were some of the others, the children of single women. On four newly-born children the verdict of “murder” was found. In one case there had been “exposure,” in a second the child was found dead, and in the other cases the verdict was simply “wilful murder.” Of the four drowning cases one was suicidal. By hanging, cut-throat, and pistol-shot all the deaths recorded (two from each cause), were suicidal, making a total of seven suicidal deaths during the year. The remaining deaths by violence were accidentally caused.

Having carefully analysed the facts relating to these deaths as they appear in the weekly returns of mortality, I submit the results, which are, I think, worthy of attention. Of course the primary cause of an inquest being held is the absence of a medical certificate showing the cause of death. The reasons why certificates are not forthcoming, and therefore why inquests become necessary, may be inferred from certain particulars which appear in the returns, and may be summed up as follows:—

Sudden Death	99
Found dead in bed (22) or otherwise (26)	48
Accident	3
Violence	15
Doubtful (none of the above reasons stated)	7
Total	172

It is to the deaths from disease that I would draw particular attention, the bare facts appearing to point to a large amount of neglect of the sick, which, without explanation, would seem to border on the criminal. Fatal visceral diseases, it need hardly be said, present symptoms which the most ignorant cannot altogether overlook—fever, pain, exhaustion, &c.; and each disease has a more or less prolonged course, varying with the importance of the organ affected, and with the amount of care bestowed on the sufferer. It is not credible that any medical man would be unable to diagnose the existence of such a disease, e.g. as pneumonia, or would refuse to certify the cause of death of a patient who had died under his care. We are driven to the conclusion, therefore, that, in a great number of cases of disease, many of the victims being infants, no effort is made to obtain medical advice for the sufferers, and hence, when death ensues, an inquest becomes necessary, as there is no medical certificate to show the cause of death. A post-mortem examination is made, and then it becomes known that death was caused by a disease that might have been cured, and that certainly must have had a well-defined and often a lengthened course. Passing over such maladies as apoplexy and heart disease, it is only necessary to mention, in support of this view, such diseases as pneumonia, &c. (30 deaths); brain diseases (15); convulsions—a symptom rather than a disease (8); scrofula (5); syphilis (2); diarrhœa, diphtheria, &c. The question then arises, in connection with such cases as these, whether it is sufficient to record the cause of death? whether, in fact, some one should not be made responsible for the neglect to provide medical advice for a child who ultimately dies “suddenly” or is “found dead” as a consequence of an attack of pneumonia, that may have extended over one, two, or three weeks, or even a longer time? Not many weeks before this present writing one of the “Peculiar People” was found guilty of manslaughter, having neglected to provide medical attendance for his child, who died of pneumonia, although it was admitted that every care, otherwise, had been bestowed on the patient; and, notwithstanding the well-known fact that with such care a very large proportion of the cases, especially if one lung only is affected, will recover. It need scarcely be added that the parents’ neglect had its origin in conscientious motives, however mistaken and absurd. Can such a plea be made in all or many of the cases to which I have here alluded: and should negligent parents escape without punishment—without censure even?

True, the facts I have thus briefly brought under notice may be explained—and they certainly need explanation; for as they baldly appear in the returns of mortality they would seem to indicate an indifference to life which is not only shocking, but may be in some degree the cause of that terrible infantile mortality which all thinking persons deplore. I will only add that it is notorious that medical men are constantly called in to see children sick beyond the hope of recovery, in order that no fuss may arise after death—the death certificate being all-sufficient. No doubt in many cases, where the diagnosis is quite clear, the certificate is given, although the practitioner may be conscious of the neglect of the parents in applying for assistance when “too late;” and, I dare say, that in some at least of the cases which come before the Coroner the inquest has been brought about by the judicious refusal of medical men to give certificates under such circumstances. I venture to think, however, that a certificate should not be given in any such case, and that not only should an inquest be held, but that the mere fact of the responsible person in charge of the infant having failed to obtain that medical advice and assistance which the poor may have for the asking, should be regarded as establishing a prima facie charge of neglect, for which he or she should appear and answer at another tribunal in the absence of exculpatory evidence.

DEATHS “NOT CERTIFIED.”

The number of deaths “not certified,” that is, of persons who were attended in their last illness by non-qualified practitioners—generally professing to hold unregisterable foreign degrees, often obtained by purchase, in absentia, was 33. The numbers in the two previous years were 30 and 21. In my annual report for 1872 I mentioned that I had some time previously called the attention of the Registrar-General to the desirability of an addition to the form of certificate of death provided for the use of medical men, whereby it would be made clear whether the subscriber was or was not duly qualified, i.e., registered. The Registrar-General approved the suggestion, and his attention having, at my instance, been again directed to the subject by the Society of Medical Officers of Health last year, he has, in the new form of certificate brought into use at the commencement of the current year, added a line immediately below the place for signature on which the subscriber is required to enter his “registered qualification.” It is not probable that any unregistered practitioner would venture to use the certificate, should he inadvertently become possessed of it, as might happen through the almost unavoidable ignorance in which the sub-district registrars are left, from the want of an official list of registered practitioners. Not long ago I ventured to direct the attention of the Registrar-General and the Registrar to the General Medical Council to the importance of these officers being supplied with the Medical Register, issued annually by the Council; but these gentlemen, while appreciating the suggestion, were unable to hold out any hope that it would or could be carried into effect, inasmuch as the Government are unwilling to incur the necessary expense, and as the Register is too inaccurate to be implicitly relied on in doubtful cases. But now that medical men are required, under a penalty for neglect, to give certificates of the cause of death, some means ought to be found of restricting the use of them in any form, to registered practitioners. The sub-district Registrars do not knowingly accept a certificate from a non-qualified practitioner, but in some cases where a medical title is used by a stranger, “invalid” certificates obtain currency. In all other irregular cases the registrar returns the death as “not certified,” making use, nevertheless, of the information as to the cause of death contained in the certificate! If it were made an offence at law for any unregistered practitioner to give a certificate of death, the difficulty would probably be met. At present I do not know what course would be best to adopt, unless to hold inquests on the bodies of all persons who die under the treatment of non-qualified practitioners. This course was adopted in some cases in the northern part of the parish last year, and it led, in at least one instance, to the unsatisfactory, not to say discreditable result, of the Philadelphian M.D. who attended a sick child, calling in a registered practitioner at the last gasp, so that he might certify to the cause of death. An inquest, however, was held on the body, and the death was found to be due to quite a different disease to that entered in the certificate. I may add that the Board of Guardians, laudably anxious to put a stop to the scandal, took proceedings at the Hammersmith Police Court against an unregistered practitioner for signing a vaccination certificate, and thus “falsely pretending to be registered.” The case was dismissed, however, and no further steps have been taken in the matter. But something should be done for the protection of the poor, who are almost exclusively the patients of the unqualified man, being unable to realize the distinction; and action is rendered the more necessary by the fact that children—infants of tender age—are most commonly the victims of the practice. Thus, of the 33 cases of uncertified deaths referred to, 25 were children, of whom 18 were less than one year old. The causes of death returned included such diseases as typhus fever, scarlet fever, measles, diarrhœa, inflammation of the lungs and of the brain, and scrofulous maladies.

METEOROLOGY.

The mean temperature of the air at Greenwich during the registration year was 49.4° F., the average of 35 years being 49.3°. The averages of the four quarters were 41.6°, 53.5°, 60.6°, and 41.8°. The hottest week was that which ended on the 11th of July, mean temperature 66.8°; and the coldest week was that ended on the 2nd of January, 1875, mean temperature 28.8°. The highest reading of the thermometer was on the 9th of July, 92.0°, and the lowest on the first day of the current year 18.2°. The dryness of the atmosphere (i.e., the difference between the dew point temperature and air temperature) was 5.6 (average in 30 years 5.5.) The rainfall was 24.1 inches.

VACCINATION.

I am indebted to Mr. Shattock, the energetic Vaccination Officer, for the interesting particulars contained in Table IX, (Appendix), on the important subject of Vaccination. From it we learn that during the year 4,357 births were returned to him by the sub-district registrars, and that the successful vaccinations numbered 3,588. Twenty-three infants were certified as insusceptible of successful vaccination; in 74 cases the postponement of vaccination was sanctioned by medical certificate on account of the state of health, &c.; 27 children were removed to other districts, the vaccination officer of each district being duly apprized of such removal; 9 cases were still under proceedings (at the date of the report), by summons or otherwise; while 464 children died unvaccinated. The cases unaccounted for—either through the removal of the children to places unknown, or which cannot be reached, and cases not having been found—amounted in all to only 172, or a fraction below 4 per cent. of the total births—a result that must be considered very satisfactory, highly creditable to the vaccination officer, and, I would add, to the Board of Guardians; while I can hardly believe it has been surpassed in any other district of the Metropolis.

The Guardians have lately (August, 1875) prosecuted successfully a non-qualified practitioner for signing Vaccination Certificates. A penalty of Ten pounds was inflicted; the offence with which the defendant was charged being that of “falsely pretending to be registered” under the Medical Act, none but registered practitioners being qualified to sign Vaccination Certificates.

SANITARY WORK.

Table 6 (Appendix) contains a summary of the principal items of sanitary work accomplished during the Vestry year ended 25th March, 1875. The number of complaints received and entered in the complaint book was 1,482; viz., 820 in the North, and 662 in the South Sanitary District. Seven thousand two hundred and eighty-six houses were inspected—viz., 3,229 in the North, and 4,057 in the South district, besides mews, of which there are about 140 in the parish. The number of sanitary notices served for the amendment of houses, premises, &c., was 1,438, viz., 756 in the North and 682 in the South: 1,477 houses and premises were cleansed, &c.: 68 were disinfected after infectious diseases. The drains of 442 houses were cleansed and repaired; and trapped and ventilated in 341 other cases: 463 privies and water-closets were repaired and supplied with water; and 6 new water-closets were provided: 31 new dust-bins were erected, and 41 old ones covered, repaired, &c.: 8 water-cisterns were constructed, and 75 cleansed, covered and repaired—a very inadequate number it would seem, so far as regards cleansing, only that in a great number of cases this operation—so commonly neglected—was directed and carried out without formal notice: 115 accumulations of dung, stagnant water, animal and other refuse were removed, and in 58 cases animals improperly kept, or kept in unfit localities (swine especially), were removed.

The number of inspections in each district, and in each period of four weeks, covered by my monthly reports, may be seen, in Table 6A. Legal proceedings were had recourse to in 100 cases, viz., 82 in the North, and 18 in the South district, and generally with a successful result. A few of the cases deserve special notice.

And first I will mention the subject of boiling food for pigs. A greater nuisance than this is, it would be difficult to imagine in a parish like Kensington. The effluvia given off from the boiling of a quantity of animal and vegetable refuse, collected from the wash-tubs, and often in a semi-putrid state before cooking, is sickening and offensive to the last degree. It constitutes by far the greater part of the nuisance arising from the keeping of swine in an improper locality; and the efforts persistently made during the last four years to improve the condition of the Potteries have been sadly marred by the continuance of the process of food collection and preparation, which still goes on to some extent, although nearly all the swine have been removed. As no means were ever adopted to prevent the escape into the air of the noxious effluvia resulting from the cooking, we resolved to attack the nuisance under the 27th section of the Nuisances Removal Act, which enacts, in effect, that

“If any building, or place for boiling offal . . . or used for any trade, business, &c., causing effluvia, be at any time certified to the local authority by any Medical Officer to be a nuisance or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and that the person carrying on such business shall not have used the best practicable means for abating such nuisance, or preventing or counteracting such effluvia, the person so offending shall, upon a summary conviction for such offence, forfeit and pay a sum of not more than Five Pounds nor less than Forty Shillings, and upon a second conviction for such offence the sum of Ten Pounds, and for each subsequent conviction a sum double the amount of the penalty imposed for the last preceding conviction, but the highest amount of such penalty shall not in any case exceed the sum of Two Hundred Pounds.”

Several prosecutions were undertaken successfully—fines varying from Forty Shillings to Five Pounds (including costs) being inflicted. The steps already taken will, it is hoped, prove sufficient, and render unnecessary any further appeal to the law, especially as a notice of your Vestry’s intention to proceed against offenders in every case has been widely distributed in the Potteries.

Twenty-four convictions were obtained against old offenders for keeping swine in an improper locality, and Mr. Bridge, one of the magistrates at the Hammersmith police-court, announced his intention of throwing on the defendants in any future cases that might be brought before him, the onus of proving that the pigs were not on the premises on days intervening between the days for which the defendants might be summoned for the offence of keeping pigs in a place under the ban of a “prohibitory order,” the penalty for this offence being Ten Shillings a day. Hitherto we have been required to prove the presence of swine on each day, so that, for example, to obtain in one week penalties to the amount of three pounds, it was necessary to visit the prohibited premises every day in the week. But if Mr. Bridge should feel justified in carrying out his views, it would only be necessary to visit the premises on Monday and Saturday to obtain the same amount of penalties which would be imposed, unless the defendant should be able to prove that the pigs were not on the premises on the intervening days, viz., Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

The proprietor of a licensed slaughter-house in the Potteries, Notting-hill, was fined in the sum of Ten pounds and costs for having on the premises the carcase of a cow, diseased and unfit for human food. The cow had been brought dead from another place, and after seizure it was stated that the carcase was not intended for food. But it was dressed in the usual way, and the meat having been condemned by Mr. Ingham, proceedings were taken before Mr. Bridge, with the result above stated, the magistrate ruling that the fact of the carcase being in the slaughterhouse was sufficient evidence of the intention to pass it off as food for man. The cow, it may be added, having died, or been killed, at a licensed cow-shed in the same locality, I pointed out to the licensee the great impropriety of his proceedings, and the risk he would run of losing his license, to say nothing of other consequences, on a repetition of his indiscretion. Subsequently, I received notice from the proprietor of a licensed slaughter-house that the carcase of another cow that had been killed in the last stage of the “lung disease” (pleuro-pneumonia) was awaiting my opinion of the fitness, or otherwise, of the meat for human food. I condemned the meat, which was removed to a knacker’s yard. No proceedings were taken in this case, but I cautioned the licensee not to admit diseased animals—living or dead—on his premises at any future time. Some time after the occurrence of this case I learnt, to my great surprise, that the instructions issued by the Metropolitan Board of Works, to the district veterinary cattle inspectors under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act authorised the removal of diseased cows from cowsheds to a licensed slaughter-house for the purpose of being killed; or if killed at the shed, of being dressed, there to await the fiat of the inspector as to the fitness, or otherwise, of the meat for human food. This instruction seems to be at variance with the slaughter-house bye-laws, to say nothing on the question of the propriety of using for food the flesh of diseased animals. In the provinces it is the practice, I believe, to destroy and bury animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia; and I am under the impression that heavy fines have been inflicted on persons for selling or exposing for sale the flesh of such animals. In London cowkeepers are required, under a penalty for neglect, to give notice to the Metropolitan Board of Works of the occurrence of cases of pleuro-pneumonia; and they are entitled to compensation from the Board to the extent of a moiety of the value of any animals that may be killed with a view of “stamping out” the disease. It follows that the larger the amount realized by the sale of the carcase, for whatever purpose, whether for the food of man or of cats, the less is the amount payable to the owner in the way of compensation.

The proprietor of the slaughter-house in the Potteries first referred to above, was fined Five pounds and costs for allowing a large accumulation of putrid blood, &c., to remain on the premises after his attention had been repeatedly called to the necessity of properly storing and regularly removing all such matters before they became offensive.

A seizure of meat unfit for human food was made at Norfolk Terrace—at a mis-called “co-operative” store—and the defendant was fined Twenty pounds and costs.

A person who had formerly kept a licensed cow-shed was fined Forty shillings and costs for keeping cows for dairy purposes without a license.

A somewhat serious nuisance having been complained of, arising at an iron foundry at Notting Hill, from the escape of noxious fumes and grit from the low but capacious chimney above the melting furnaces, I gave a certificate to the effect necessary to found legal proceedings, which, however, were not had recourse to, the proprietors of the foundry having expressed their willingness to adopt any measures I might advise, with a view to remove the cause of complaint. They have done this by carrying up the shaft some 20 feet, and by the interposition of diaphragms to intercept the fine grit carried up by the draught; and I hope that in the result these measures will be found adequate for the purpose.

LICENSED SLAUGHTER HOUSES.

The licensed slaughter-houses—49 in number—viz., 28 in the North Sanitary District, and 21 in the South, have been duly inspected. In my last annual report I gave some account of the Slaughter Houses (Metropolis) Act, 1874, under which the Metropolitan Board of Works, as the “local authority,” were empowered to frame bye-laws, for regulating the conduct of the business of a slaughterer of cattle, and the structure of the premises in which the business is carried on. As it was impossible to get the bye-laws framed and confirmed by the Local Government Board previous to the annual licensing day in the month of October (as a matter of fact they were not confirmed until the 27th of May in the present year), your Vestry, on the recommendation of the Sanitary Committee, unanimously resolved that certain conditions were essential in order to fit a slaughter-house for the business, and decided to oppose the renewal of licenses in every case that did not come up to the standard. The conditions were as follows:

1. A slaughter-house should have an independent entrance, so that the cattle may not have to pass through the house or shop; and it should be at a reasonable distance from other buildings, particularly inhabited houses.

2. It should be open to the roof; or, at least, should have no inhabited rooms over it.

3. It should be well ventilated and properly lighted, so that the slaughtering may be done, as it always should be, with closed doors.

4. It should have walls and floor of smooth and impervious materials—the flooring being laid on concrete.

5. It should be well drained, with stone ware pipes, and the drains should be permanently trapped.

6. It should have attached to it ample and separate lairage, constructed with a due regard to sanitary and other requirements.

7. It should be effectually separated from any lair, stable, dung-pit, w.c., &c., so that the meat may not be exposed to any offensive effluvia.

8. It should be of adequate size, and should not be used for any other purpose than that for which it is licensed, and particularly it should not be used as a stable, a lair, or a cow-shed.

Upon viewing the several slaughter-houses by this standard, so many were found defective in one or other respect that it was thought best to give the formal notice of opposition required by the Act, in every case, but your Clerk and myself were directed to oppose the renewal of the license in those cases only that did not come up to the standard. We did this, but the justices overruled our objection in every case, on the ground that the premises, however faulty, had been licensed in former years, and time must be allowed to put them in proper order. At the same time, the justices gave the assembled licensees notice that at the next licensing day (in October of the current year, namely) they would not renew the license in any case that was not up to the standard. With reference to the decision of the magistrates, and the ground on which it was based, it is, perhaps, hardly necessary for me to state the fact, so well known already, that the existing slaughter-houses, were, without exception, licensed before I entered upon the duties of my appointment, and that the reason your Vestry did not oppose the renewal of the licenses in either of the subsequent years was that, in common with myself, you believed that the private slaughter-houses would be finally closed in 1874, under the operation of the Building Act, 1844. It only remains to add that the slaughter-houses will now have to be judged by the standard of the bye-laws; and it may therefore be useful to state in what respect the bye-laws differ—either in excess or defect—from the standard adopted by your Vestry in 1874. As regards new slaughter-houses, the requirements of the “local authority” are fully up to that standard; and, as regards existing slaughter-houses, the only material differences between the bye-laws and the standard relate to the points dealt with in clauses 1 and 6 (supra). The bye-laws do not require that a slaughter-house shall have an independent entrance, or be at all removed from other buildings; and they do not require provision to be made for housing cattle previous to slaughtering; but it is enacted that no animal shall be detained on the “premises” for a longer time than “absolutely necessary” previous to slaughtering, and that the “slaughter-house” (which is only a part of the “premises”) shall not be used for “any other purpose than that for which it is licensed,” viz., killing. It follows, then, that the slaughter-house itself may not be used as a lair, and the question arises—Where shall the animals be kept, if there be no lairage? It appears to me that the existence of lairage is assumed, and that the absence of this necessary accommodation would form a reasonable cause for opposition even under the bye-laws. But whether this is so or not, I venture to think that your Vestry would be fairly entitled to oppose the renewal of a license in the case of premises so obviously defective, and that you would be fully justified in taking the opinion of the justices as to the suitability of premises for a slaughter-house to which there is no access save through a butcher’s shop or dwelling-house.

(The Vestry subsequently adopted these views. I here subjoin a synopsis of the bye-laws, which I have prepared for the guidance of the Sanitary Inspectors.)

Objects of the Bye Laws:—To regulate the conduct of the business of a slaughterer of cattle, and the structure of the premises on which such business is carried on, and the mode in which application is to be made for sanction to establish such business anew.

Definitions.—The Metropolitan Board of Works, as the “Local Authority,” is styled the “Board.” “The premises” include the Slaughter House and all the premises used for the business of a slaughterer of cattle. The “Slaughter House” means the portion of the premises used for the slaughtering and dressing of cattle. The “Occupier” means the occupier of premises where the business of a slaughterer of cattle is carried on; and “Slaughterer of cattle” means a person whose business it is to kill any kind of cattle for the purpose of its flesh being used as Butchers’ meat.

Bye-Laws as to the Structure of the Premises, (Nos. 15 to 21 inclusive.)—The slaughter house to be well paved with asphalte or flagstone set in cement, laid with a proper slope and channel towards a gulley, and effectually drained by an adequate drain of glazed pipes communicating with the public sewer. The gulley to be trapped by an appropriate trap and covered with a grating, the bars of which to be not more than ⅜ of an inch apart (16).

The inner walls of the Slaughter House to be covered with hard, smooth impervious material, to the height of four feet at the least, and to be always kept clean, and in good order, and repair (17).

No room or loft to be built by owner or occupier over any Slaughter House (20).

An adequate tank or other proper receptacle for water and water supply to be provided, and so placed that the bottom of the same shall not be less than 6 feet above the floor level (15).

The Slaughter House to be well and thoroughly ventilated (15).

No water closet, privy, cesspool, urinal, or stable to be within, or to communicate directly with the Slaughter House (19).

The occupier to cause all needful works and repairs to the premises to be forthwith done and executed, as and when the same shall become requisite, and not to make any alteration in respect of the paving, drainage, ventilation, or water supply, to, or in the premises, without the consent of the “Board” (18).

Penalties.—For breach of any of the bye-laws, 15 to 20 inclusive, whether by omission, commission, or neglect, £5; and in the case of a continuing offence, the sum of £1 for every day during which such offence is continued after a conviction for the first offence (21).

Bye-Laws as to the Conduct of the Business Nos. 1 to 14 Inclusive:—The inner walls of the Slaughter House to be always kept clean and in good order and repair; and the internal surface of the roof and upper portions of the walls to be washed with quick-lime at least once in every three months (6).

The Slaughter House to be thoroughly washed and cleansed within three hours after the slaughtering is completed (7).

A sufficient number of tubs, boxes, or vessels, formed out of proper non-absorbent materials, with tight and close fitting covers thereto, to be provided for the purpose of receiving and carrying away all manure, garbage, offal and filth, and these products to be placed in the tubs, &c., immediately after the killing and dressing of any cattle. Blood to be put into similar but separate tubs, &c., and all such tubs, &c., with their contents to be removed from the premises within 24 hours (5).

The fat of any animal slaughtered to be kept freely exposed to the air until its removal from the premises; and all such fat, and also hides, skins, and tripes to be removed within 24 hours after the slaughtering is completed (9). Carcase, bone, hide, skin, and all meat, fat, offal, blood, garbage, and other articles, to be removed before the same have become putrid or offensive (10).

Every covered and other receptacle used in the Slaughter House to be kept cleansed and purified so as to avoid any offensive smell (8).

Cattle not to be kept in the “premises” except for the time absolutely necessary previous to slaughter (1). The Slaughter House not to be used for any purpose other than that for which it is licensed; and slaughtering not to be conducted within public view (4).

No animal that is not intended or fit for human food to be slaughtered in the premises (1); and if any diseased cattle should be brought to the Slaughter House, the occupier to give information thereof, forthwith, to the “Board,” and to the cattle inspector for the district, with all particulars in his knowledge as to where, from whom, and from what place it was received (11).

No fowl, pig, or other animal used for human food (except cattle about to be slaughtered), and no dog to be kept in or about the premises (2).

No room situated over the Slaughter House to be inhabited under any pretence whatsoever (3).

All persons lawfully entitled to admission to have free access to the premises during the times of slaughter and at all reasonable hours (12).

Penalties.—For breach of any of the Bye-laws, 1 to 12 inclusive, whether by omission, commission, or neglect, £3; and in the case of a continuing offence, £1 for every day during which such offence is continued after a conviction for the first offence; and every Court of Summary Jurisdiction, having Jurisdiction to hear and decide complaints of the breach of the Bye-laws, may by Summary Order suspend or deprive any occupier of a Slaughter House altogether of the right of carrying on any such business, as a penalty for the breach of any one of these Bye-laws (13–14).

As to the mode in which Application is to be made for sanction to Establish anew the Business of a Slaughterer of Cattle.—The Applicant to furnish the “Board” with a plan of the premises and sections of the building in which it is proposed to carry on such business, drawn to a scale of a quarter of an inch to the foot, and showing the provision made, or proposed to be made, for the drainage, lighting, ventilation, and water supply of the same; and also to furnish a key plan of the locality, showing the buildings and streets within 100 yards of the premises, drawn to a scale of five feet to the mile (22).

Notes.—It is required that the Slaughter House, in respect of structure, be brought into conformity forthwith with the Bye-laws (15 to 20); when this has been done, the Bye-laws, (1 to 12), which relate to the conduct of the business, will principally engage attention. The points to which attention will have more especially to be given are those that apply to—

1. The daily and quarterly cleansing.

2. The provision and condition of impermeable and covered vessels for the reception and removal of blood, offal, &c.

3. The exposure to air of fat, and the regular removal of all parts of animals, including blood, offal and manure, before the same become putrid or offensive.

4. The exclusive use of the Slaughter House for slaughtering. (It may not be used as a lair, or as a stable, or as a cart shed).

5. The exclusion from the “premises” of fowls, pigs, dogs, &c.

6. The detention in the premises for so long only as absolutely necessary of animals about to be slaughtered. The “Occupier,” it may be added, is the party responsible for the due execution of the Bye-laws.

LICENSED COW-SHEDS.

The licensed cow-sheds, 33 in number—viz., 17 in the North and 16 in the South district—have been regularly inspected. Your Vestry, after a careful consideration of the subject, and after making enquiries as to the practice adopted in other districts, have adopted a standard of capacity to be complied with in respect of cow-sheds, viz., an allowance of 800 cubic feet of space for each cow, no height of shed above 16 feet to be reckoned in the computation of cubic space; each single stall to be 4 feet, and a double stall for two cows, 7½ feet in width. It is to be desired that steps should be taken to obtain powers to frame bye-laws for regulating the structure of cow sheds, the same as slaughter-houses. Great improvements are necessary in many of the cow-sheds; some of the sheds are, in fact, ill-adapted for the purpose, and in the category I would include those that are not open to the roof—being, in fact, imperfectly ventilated stables. The importance of properly constructed—which means well drained, well paved, well lighted, and well ventilated—cow-sheds, is becoming better understood every year, and events to which reference has already been made (p. 10 ante) are likely to give an impetus in the direction of bringing cow sheds under much more strict supervision, as to construction and management than heretofore. It is not uncommon to hear complaints of offensive smells from cow-sheds, even where the premises are very well kept, and where the smell is really not greater than must needs be expected, regard being had to the number of cows kept, and the removal of manure, &c. Should cow-sheds become the subject of legislation, and precise regulation thereunder, it would be desirable to provide for a notice being posted, outside the premises, some days before the annual licensing day, the same as is done in the case of public-houses, and as ought to be done in respect of slaughter-houses, so that householders in the vicinity might, if necessary, attend and show cause against the renewal of the license.

BAKEHOUSES.

The bakehouses, 108 in number—viz., 60 in the North and 48 in the South district—have been regularly inspected during the year, and the provisions of the Act relating to them carried out as efficiently as circumstances would admit.

Complaints arising out of the neglect of Contractors to fulfil the duty of

DUST REMOVAL

occupied, as usual, an inordinate amount of time in the way of inspection, correspondence and clerical work, the letters, and other communications received during the year being 5,891, viz., 2,560 in the North, and 3,331 in the South district. The actual number of complaints was 1,010, viz., 357 in the North, and 653 in the South contract district; while the orders issued for the removal of dust were 10,177, viz., 3,868 in the North District, and 6,309 in the South. The vexatious difficulties attending this important question led your Vestry to consider again the possibility of dispensing with the assistance of contractors; but no result has hitherto come out of the trouble that was taken by a Committee and by the Clerk of the Vestry to solve the difficulty. The same as with respect to the mortuary and the disinfecting chamber, the lack of a suitable site for the storing of the dust in the intermediate stage between the dust-bins and the final disposition of their contents, has practically rendered nugatory all the labour bestowed on the question. Towards the close of the contract year the complaints became so numerous that your Vestry not only employed a staff of horses, carts, and men to make up for the deficiencies of the contractor (and at his expense) but, also, imposed heavy pecuniary penalties. A somewhat curious result of this strictly equitable and, in fact, unavoidable severity was, that the new contractors for the North district expressed unwillingness to sign the contract, and did not sign it for a period of three months, during which time, as they preferred to set about their work in their own way, which only brought matters right after a considerable interval, the complaints in this district became very numerous, and the difficulty experienced in the first quarter of 1875 in the South district, was, in the second quarter, transferred to the North. But as not seldom happens, so in this case—out of evil came good, for your Vestry temporarily appointed, at my request, a Dust Inspector, whose services having given satisfaction, and proved very useful, have been permanently retained, thus affording a very much needed accession to the strength of the sanitary staff at my disposal.

DOMESTIC WATER STORAGE.

Next to the unwholesomeness of houses arising from the neglected state of dust bins—to whatever cause the neglect may be attributable—no subject, perhaps, so often engages the attention of Sanitary Inspectors as that of water supply and the neglected state of cisterns. It would almost seem as if many householders thought that the water supply needed no more attention than that of gas, which is usually comprised in a quarterly settlement with the collector. Months and probably years elapse in some cases without any attention being paid to the condition of cisterns which, I need hardly say, ought to be cleaned out periodically, and not less frequently than once a month. It is true that the inconvenient position in which the cisterns are sometimes placed occasions difficulties in getting at them, which may in some measure account for the neglect. But in other cases where no such difficulty exists the result is the same. One among the “water regulations” by which the Companies are almost constituted a sanitary authority, and which might be enforced with public advantage, relates to the position of cisterns which are required to be placed in accordance with their views. This regulation is of a retrospective character, but so far as I know it is not carried out. Another valuable regulation would abolish the “waste pipe”—a fertile and unsuspected cause of foul water, and, in many cases of illness, being often untrapped and then serving as a ventilator to the drains, giving exit to noxious gases which the water absorbs freely. But I cannot say that I have heard of any instance in which the Companies have exercised their powers in this respect—powers, be it understood, claimed by and conceded to them, not on sanitary grounds, but simply to prevent the waste of water. It is one of my most often repeated instructions to the Inspectors to view the apparatus for water supply when making a house inspection, and to abolish waste pipes whenever practicable. Another regulation has for its object, to prevent waste of water, by the intervention of a service box for the supply of the water closet, thus limiting the discharge at each elevation of the lever to a maximum of two gallons. This regulation I have no doubt is carried out in the case of new houses; but it is perhaps of even more importance in old ones, in which, as too often happens, the domestic and the closet service are drawn from one and the same cistern. In a special report (November 20, 1872) I referred to all these points, and to many others, and I have seen no reason to modify the expressions of regret with which I then had occasion to speak of the stringency of the regulations, which is, I apprehend, the main, if not the sole cause of our being still without the constant system of water supply which it was supposed the Act of 1871 would give us. The stringency to which I allude has reference principally to the costliness of the apparatus and fittings on which the companies insist as a condition of constant service; and not to the exercise of the powers they possess, but do not as a rule employ, to improve the present system by insisting on the due carrying out of the really useful and valuable regulations quoted above. The adoption of this constant system would enable us to get rid of our cisterns, if not altogether, yet so far as the supply of water for culinary use and drinking is concerned. The neglect of cisterns to which I referred above, would then be a matter of less moment; and as the pipes would be always charged, we should be less liable, than we are now, to the contamination of water, for such an accident as I am about to mention would be almost impossible.

Complaint was made that the first portion of water entering certain cisterns in a street and mews at Notting Hill, each time the water was turned on, was of a disgusting character; and this happened at a time when there was an obstruction of the sewer in the mews, the effect being to saturate the ground and flood the surface with sewage and surface drainage. I surmised that the main was defective, and that when the water was turned off the sewage was sucked into the pipe to fill the vacuum, and then forced through the service pipes so soon as the water was turned on. It turned out, so I was informed by the Company, that the defect really existed in a service pipe of one of the houses; the effect, however, was the same, and dangerous nuisances of this kind may occur at any time, or in any locality, under similar circumstances, so long as the intermittent system of water supply is continued. In the present instance several cases of illness were traced to this fouling of the water, and had the sewer contained typhoid excreta, the results might have been lamentable in the extreme, and of the same kind as at Over Darwen, and at Lewes during the recent epidemics of Enteric Fever. As I have remarked in another place, we seem as far off as ever from the constant system, the only gleam of hope in respect of it being that the companies have made, and are making extensive preparations, so as to enable them to supply their districts when called on to do so. They are enabled to give a constant supply even though it should not be required of them by the Metropolitan authority, and they would be gainers by so doing, if the prevention of waste is really of any moment to them, which may be reasonably doubted. The Metropolitan authority is the Metropolitan Board of Works, a body which it is well known are unwilling to execute the authority conferred on them by the Act, strongly disapproving, as they do, of the regulations, the stringency of which they did their utmost, but in vain, to modify.

MORTUARY.

I cannot allow the subject of a mortuary to pass without a brief reference, and an expression of my great regret that the parish is still unprovided with one. As I have stated in former reports, the burials, at the public expense, of poor persons, occupants in life of single rooms, are reckoned by hundreds every year; and I cannot doubt that in a large proportion of these cases the survivors would avail themselves of the privilege of depositing their dead in a public mortuary of suitable construction, and in a suitable locality. Poor persons in somewhat similar circumstances, but above the pauper class, would, in all probability, also use the mortuary. The law provides for the removal of the bodies of those who have died of an infectious disease, viz., on medical certificate and by Justice’s order. Bodies of persons found dead or accidentally killed, and not identified, would be received as a matter of course. A properly-designed mortuary would embrace a room for conducting post-mortem examinations, which are now often made under painful and distressing circumstances, to say nothing of the inconvenience to which the operator is put—and there were 154 such examinations last year by coroner’s order. It should also embrace a suitable Court for the due and proper execution of the coroner’s office.

No progress in this matter has been made since my last report, a conference with a Committee of the Board of Guardians, with a view to the appropriation of a portion of the stone yard at the Dispensary Buildings, Mary Place, Potteries, having proved abortive. I cannot say I regret this result, as I do not consider the site a desirable one. The mortuary should be quite distinct from any association with pauperism, and though privacy of site is desirable, I hold that it should be placed in the most respectable and the most central locality that can be obtained, in order to ensure its being used. I am still of opinion that the

DISINFECTING CHAMBER

should, if possible, be so far associated with the mortuary as to enable one and the same person to have the charge of both establishments. Proceedings in respect of both are alike at a standstill, because we have not been able to procure a site. Fortunately, during a considerable portion of the year there has not been very much need of a chamber, so far as need depends on the prevalence of infectious disease; but I am of opinion that a great amount of good sanitary work might be done with an efficient chamber, if only in purifying by heat the often foul and otherwise offensive bedding and clothing of the poor. Latterly, owing to the increased prevalence of scarlet fever, and also during the latter period of 1874, a good deal of disinfection has been satisfactorily carried out for your Vestry by Messrs. Wellan & Co., of Manchester Mews, Walmer Road, Notting Hill, by chemical agents and heat combined. As to the value of disinfection properly done there can be no doubt and I am not acquainted with a single instance in which clothing, bedding, &c., that has been properly submitted to the process, has been the medium of contagion.